Warlord Games' ancient range has been one of my two main sources when building up my ancient armies - the other being the Victrix plastics range. Warlord's plastics are excellent - lovely models and well priced. Their metal figures - well, I have my doubts about some of them. Their Companion Cavalry, for example. Nice figures individually, but really too delicate for wargaming, especially the spindly legs of the horses. And they also suffer from a more common fault with modern figures that I find particularly irritating - the apparent need for variety in figure poses, and for those poses to be of the 'action' variety. So those Companions are all waving their xystons around with gay abandon, doubtless poking each others eyes out and wounding each other's horses.
This exasperation with the need for action poses reached its peak when I purchased a unit of Warlord's Persian Immortals. Of course, they look great in the beautiful pictures on the Warlord online shop, but I got increasingly frustrated as I put the figures together, then painted and based them.
 |
| Grrrrr... |
In my opinion, the problems are twofold - history-wise, and wargaming-wise. Historically, I am under the impression that the Immortals were basically heavy infantry, relying on cohesion and formation to fight effectively in melee. Yes, I know many gamers might class them as 'mediums', depending on what rules one is using, and also that they carried bows and had a significant shooting ability. But nevertheless, to fight in the line of battle (as they did), they fought in formation using big shields and long pointy things. And those shields in particular had to form a solid front if they were to provide proper protection to the formation as a whole.
Sadly, Warlord have decided to model these guys basically as a bunch of skirmishers. As the photo shows, the poses are varied and decidedly of the 'action' variety. Most figures seem to be running, and in true Warlord fashion they are also waving their spears around and flinging their shields wildly at their neighbours. How they will reach the enemy without tripping over their shields and getting gored by their comrades is hard to imagine. And the hoplites they're charging are probably laughing their heads off at how easy it will be to get inside that ineffective line of shields and swiftly gore the Persians to death.
And from a wargaming point of view, all this variety causes real problems when basing. Getting them to fit on my fairly standard heavy infantry bases (20mm per figure) needed a lot of fiddling around, as the shields and spears took up way too much space and the selection of poses creates too many problems in the way figures interact with each other. Arranging the group bases is made even more tricky by the tiny individual bases the figures are cast with - the buggers just won't stand up reliably whilst you juggle them around, trying to get a suitable set-up. And when this is finally achieved, the result is so irregular you can hardly pick up the finished bases to move them around without inadvertently bending a soft metal spear or breaking off a shield.
Having completed 8, I have decided to set these guys aside and buy something more suitable. I'll probably get the HCH Figures Early Persian Immortals, ready painted. Check the link - that's how heavy infantry for wargaming should look. Now, for 16 figures that might well set me back nearly £70, but I reckon I will treat myself. That new tyre for the car will have to wait until next month. At least I'll keep my sanity.
Cheers - until next time.
12 comments:
Hmmm, not great poses IMHO for infantry that fought as you described. I think todays market demands/expects a wide variety of poses which, whilst fine for skirmish games, simply do not work for 'rank and file'. They are also far too delicate as you say, which was a common fault with GW minis when they went multipose.
I remember seeing a FoG game where two beautifully painted phalanxes closed for combat but, due to the various angles of the spears, simply coud not make contact! Far better to have had them all vertical from a game point of view. Both changed their figures after the game.
Wise words Steve. The order for the HCH figures is in. Let sanity reign!
Hopefully Warlord Games will re-release the Wargames Factory plastic Persians. Certainly that is what I'm waiting for before I put together a Persian force.
Good point. The photos of those figures I've seen look good.
They seem to have deprecated lots of the wargames factory stuff where they have overlapping metals. IMHO the WGF Numidian infantry were a super set being useful for many classical infantry types. Wish I bought more when you could get um
You get what you order, I suppose.
Personally, even in tight knit formations I like some variety. Perhaps, if you went for 24 man units with a tighter (15mm per man) spacing the might look more 'close order'.
Believe me, pose and spacing makes a HUGE difference in how units look. Perhaps you are trying to get too much 'look' from the number of figures you are employing.
Just a thought, possibly not a pleasant one.
Hi Keith. I hope you are well, it’s been a while since we met! Warlords metal and plastic are a bit hit and miss, but there are certain metal figures like their ancient Germans I really like. It’s all a matter of personal taste isn’t it? The plastic romans and celts, their first real eases, really do nothing for me I’m afraid! Best wishes, Barry
Hi Barry, great to hear from you - it certainly has been a while since you introduced me to Minden Rose! We had some lovely games at your place.
Are you in range of Northleach for the Wargaming Day on 25th September?
James - interesting comments. I honestly don't think I could have fitted these figures together at 15mm per figure. It was a bit like doing a jigsaw puzzle just with a 20mm spacing. I do tend to use smaller units, with 16 figures a current favourite, mainly to reduce cost and the painting challenge but also because I find bigger units tend to be cumbersome on the table and force one to have bigger playing surfaces.
However, you will be relieved to know that with the rules I currently use (Mantic's 'Kings's of War Historical') I use 8 figure bases to field heavy infantry in unit sizes up to 32 figures. And you're right - in that unit size they tend to look the part.
Hi Keith. I’ve pencilled in the date so if I can make it I’ll let you know! Regards, Barry
There are good and bad ways to increase the pose count.
The bad way appears inherited from the Airfix and Revell polythene plastics.
Lots of random poses - which is OK for World War 2 packs, but less so for men who fought in lines.
For an example of the good way, take a look at AB figures 18mm Napoleonics, or HaT Industrie more recent Napoleonic infantry.
AB have essentially the same pose, with the head turned at a slightly different angle, or a slight variation to arm position.
This allows sensible basing, without the look of a unit of automata in identical poses.
HaT supply packs of marching or action poses. The marching poses have variety, but like the AB are sufficiently coordinated to combine on a base. The Action poses have rather more variety, with figures shooting, loading and presenting their bayonets.
Thanks for that Steve. Nice to see some manufacturers understanding their market a bit better.
Post a Comment